The Media & Politicians

While politicians embroiled in scandals have been eager to avoid the media, there is an increasing tendency of candidates to avoid dealings with media they regard as non-friendly. This was especially noticeable in the run up to the recent elections.

Some pundits trace the start of this new tendency back to Sarah Palin’s bid for vice president. After her interview with Katie Couric, she decided to change her approach to the media. While she taunts the “lamestream media”, she appears on Fox regularly. However, Sharron Angle seemed to outdo Palin in this regard. After being nominated by the Republicans, Angle followed a strategy of accepting interviews rarely and only then from conservatives. She made her reason quite clear in public: she was upset that reporters would not ask her the questions that she wanted them to ask.

This evasion of the press is not just for the folks on the right. While the media is often sweepingly condemned for being liberals, liberal politicians have been avoiding the media-specifically the conservative media (such as Fox News).

One obvious reason why some politicians avoid the media is that it can be risky. While the media generally does not ask hard or critical questions, there is always the chance that a politician will flub badly. No doubt they think of Palin’s disastrous interview with Couric and O’Donnel’s media adventures and think twice before agreeing to an interview.

Of course, one reason why the public should want politicians to be interviewed is to see how they handle such sandbox situations. If some cannot stand up to the inquiries of the press, then it raises questions about how well they can handle the rigors of office.

Another obvious reason is that some politicians are probably aware that if people knew their real views, then they would have greater difficulty being elected. While it can be wise to remain silent when one has nothing worth saying, a politician who is unwilling to discuss what s/he stands for is a matter of concern. After all, if they are saying nothing, then it seems reasonable to suspect that they are concerned that what they have to say is something that would not go over very well.

Of course, the voters have a right to know the views of a politician. At the very least, they need some basis on which to decide which candidate to vote for.

A third reason is that the media is often regarded as biased and hostile. In the case of the right, they tend to see the non-conservative media as being against them. In the case of the left, they see the conservative media as being against them. As they see it, it makes little sense to go on a news show to be attacked and presented in a negative light. It makes more sense to go someplace friendly (or at least neutral).

This does seem reasonable-at least in the case of the media that is clearly biased (Fox News and MSNBC stand out here). However, this concern does not seem justified in the case of media that is not biased. Of course, some folks think that any media that is not asking them the questions they want to be asked is biased. However, there is a clear distinction between being biased and asking questions that are not the ones a politician would like to answer.

A fourth reason is that bashing the media can be a way to gain popularity. People today seem to have a rather negative view of “the media” and, as such, it is an easy target. Ironically, Fox News fans seem to be the ideal target for this appeal-even though they seem to be rather fond of their own special media friends at Fox. I suppose the irony is lost on them.

Sarah Palin has shown a remarkable talent (genius even) in handling the media. She enrages it like a matador angers a bull. Then, when the media rushes to attack, she managed to leap on its back like a cowgirl and ride the media bronco to headlines and front covers. When the folks in the media mock her or are critical, they mainly serve to help her. First, they (as just noted) give her awesome amounts of coverage that keeps her in the news. Second, they serve to confirm the view of her fans that the media are out to get her.

Of course, there is the question of whether or not media bashing is enough. If, for example, Palin plans on being a presidential candidate in 2012, it seems likely that she will have to engage the lamestream media. Perhaps she will be up to the challenge then.

What, so everyone before Obama was unaware that the more vehemently a media outlet disagreed with their views, the more pointed and acidic their questions and commentary regarding them would be? Unlikely; that’s as old as the media itself.

The new generation of media is properly termed “Gotcha!, Media”. Each interview or anaysis is more about making the journalist look clever than actually just telling it as it is. Take Michael Hastings in Rolling Stone for instance. His mission was to get people in trouble, and he succeeded. McChrystal got canned. But guess what? When he applied to be embedded again, the Pentagon denied it. If you are simply a trouble maker, if all you want to do is give facts through a narrow scope that hurts people, why should anyone trust you? Why should someone sacrifice their career for yours?

I read a book by Bob Woodward and I’m astounded to see what REAL journalism looks like. I really think that a professional journalist should tell the facts and let the facts speak for themselves. I barely watch any TV news now. I try not to get stuck with just one writer because I know it’s easy to get pulled into one-track thinking.

The primary thing that attracts me to certain writers is trust.

After reading “Obama’s Wars” by Woodward, I decided to go back in time and read “Bush at War” by woodward. It was written in 2002 in a different political landscape. It’s shocking to me how the media and blog-idiots changed the facts over the years. All the statements about cowboy stuff–it just isnt there. And Woodward’s no conservative. I see what’s basically the exact same process that Obama went through in decided how or if a war should be prosecuted, with few easy answers and many people disagreeing on details.

By the way Mike: Fox has far more people with leftist views than MSNBC has right-wingers. Allen Colms and Juan Williams are well-known liberals. There more too. Who does MSNBC have on the other side? Are Colms and Williams biased? Is CNN unbiased?

Fox has some of the most well-respected minds in journalism, and yes many of them are conservatives: Charles Krauthammer. The guy’s a genius and a writer for the Washington Post. George Will. Also writes for News Week. Bill Kristol–a conservative but respected.

“Sarah Palin has shown a remarkable talent (genius even) in handling the media. She enrages it like a matador angers a bull.”

Yes, and left-wing professors too. You and the media give her a lot of power. Conservatives just yawn and go to work.

Sure, Fox has more lefties than MSNBC has right wingers. However, this does not change the fact that both are biased. I do admit that I’ll watch Fox before MSNBC.

I’m not a left-winger. Well, relative to the extreme right I suppose I would be left.

Assessing the coverage of Palin seems legitimate. After all, she does seem to be a factor in politics. She probably has a decent chance in 2012 of being a candidate-unless things change significantly between now and then.

Professional journalism does need an overhaul. While it is true that the media has always been less than objective (yellow journalism, etc.) I agree that things seem worse now. It would be nice to see more objective reporting and rational analysis. Of course, the news is a business and it must give people what they want to watch. Analysis and so on would be a lot like going to a class-and we know how much people love that. 🙂

Objective analysis according to whom? Everyone has a bias, Mike. Mathematicians have differing opinions about mathematics, not to mention everything else that makes up life.

It comes down to how big you want to draw the circle of who “we” are. Journalism is made up of the kind of people who like journalism, for whatever reason. In a free society, that will never change. Extreme left wing and extreme right wing journalists view themselves as “objective” relative to various degrees of anarchy and totalitarianism. It’s even a matter of opinion and/or perspective whether either anarchy or totalitarianism is closest to the left or the right.

One would hope that reporting the news, the basic facts in the news, could be independent of opinion. But even with reporting unvarnished facts, it is a matter of opinion which facts are relevant and which aren’t. It’s a decision that must be made or information overload will make the information irrelevant. The problem is not that the mainstream media lacks objectivity. The half of the problem is that the MSM likes to project a false image of objectivity. And I definitely include Fox’s “We report, you decide” BS branding in this criticism. The other half of the problem is that there is, ironically, little diversity of bias. See Bernard Goldberg’s “Bias” on how the major media outlets like to follow what the NY Times thinks is important. Perhaps when the Gray Lady folds, the other players will show some individuality.

🙂 “It’s even a matter of opinion and/or perspective whether either anarchy or totalitarianism is closest to the left or the right.” You do realize that what you’ve written would be considered heresy by more than one regular poster on this site. . .

Given the totality of what you’ve written above, the demise of the NYT and the unlikely “rebirth”–if it ever existed– of individuality in the media is unlikely to result in objectivity in journalism.

I appreciate your point that bias is inherent and, consequently, that objectivity tends to emerge at the locus of a sufficient diversity of bias — if you imagine ‘objectivity’ as the center of a coordinate plane and ‘bias’ as deviation from the center, it’s easy to see that the more points plotted and the more diverse their bias, the more their average will correspond to ‘objectivity’.

But, we’re not starting from scratch; countless lifetimes of transmitted experience inform our sensibilities toward what is ‘objective’ and what is not. In context, beliefs that significantly depart from the implications of that experience are what we mean by bias.

Because of this, all opinions are not equal — and because of that, things are not simply “matters of opinion”. It’s hard to describe exactly what we mean by the process of ‘reason’, but I’m sure that it involves perceiving regularities in experience; unreasonable are those opinions that contradict those regularities.

Of course all opinions are not equal nor are all things “matters of opinion”. But conversely, too much consensus should raise red flags also. And ‘reason’ is probably impossible to define in a concrete manner. Yet, that’s not an excuse for not being reasonable. Perhaps it’s a lack of humility that is the root of the problem.

On a similar note, I found this article interesting. While refreshing, it didn’t surprise me that the author seemed to feel enlightened by his own insight, nor that his acknowledged prejudice originated either from the political left, or at least, a bias against the political right.

You say you are not a left-winger but you only bring up bias in relationsfip to Fox news. You say the news is more biased now and the only difference on tv is Fox news in the recent past. You say you are not a left winger but you always use examples of how a right leaning politician was caught. You say one thing but your actions(topics you post) show quite the opposite.

The Left Wing media had been in bed with the Dems for many-many years. Fox news pops up and gives an alternative to what many people obviously knew was spoon fed propaganda and suddenly there is now a crisis. Now there is a cry for control from the left because they have lost their iron grip on the propaganda machine. You can tell there is a new ‘memo’ fed to the left wing media outlets from the Democrat Party because politicians will have their press conferences and the Lefty media will be saying specific points at almost exactly the same time. Rush Limbaugh runs a montage whenever it happens. I don’t even know of any examples for Fox news. Fox news came about and is very successful because their was a need business wise that the lefty media would not fill. A need to not be spoon fed what the Democrats want us to think.

Re your boston.com article: Reminds me a bit of recent wikileaks revelations (where everyone’s ox gets gored, security and sensibilities be damed) in one sense. It’s highly likely that had Dems “infiltrated” Republican files, similar damning information would have been discovered about Republicans. Anyone who’s as perspicacious as the average Fox viewer claims to be knows that historically the guilt for just about any type of political transgression has crossed party lines without regard to ideology, race, or gender. Only a true believer would think otherwise.

Ummmm, like what? I remember a time a few years ago when Bush had done something, the action escapes me at the moment, and the Democrats in their outraged press conferences said the exact phrase that so many lefty news outlets said at the same time. Even news programs on seperate channels were saying the same thing. They all accused Bush of ‘political jujitsu’. To have an exact phrase come out of the woodwork the morning after points to a concerted effort. To have many respond to an action the next day is not. It is the near identical phrases that the left use that give them away. This is one of my favorite segments that rush does. So do you have examples?

Maybe this isn’t true where you live, but where I live, talk radio IS conservative radio. If you’re claiming that conservative radio doesn’t hammer the conservative talking points, you’re one of the true believers I referred to above.

Give an example because very often Glenn Beck and rush are not even in the same zip code with what they talk about. Rush is often hammering Republicans that are not acting as conservatives. I need examples. By the way, I think you are one of the crazy believers from the other side. Those people who think the left are actually helping the poor or fighting racism. Bah-ah-ah-ah-ah.

Obviously the right is “helping the poor and fighting racism.” The evidence is all around us? 🙂 And since you think the left isn’t “helping the poor and fighting racism” that leaves no one “helping the poor and fighting racism”. That may be why the wealth gap, like Topsy, just grows and grows and grows. And why racism still hasn’t gone the way of smallpox.

You forget that I’ve heard enough of Rush–about 2 hours (that would be about 5 hours actual time, minus the advertisements) to know what Rush does. If you can’t see through the straw men (by the real definition of the phrase) and generalizations and who-the-hell-knows what other propaganda devices he uses, you really should hesitate to use him as a source or claim any part of his show as a “favorite”. Why, someday, someone might just have to listen to his show and identify and dissect each and every half-truth, lie, and misdirection–sprinkled with the wee amount of truth necessary to keep his listeners slavering. Michael–a good assignment for your class.
As for Beck, I can’t really watch him or listen to him.He’s too physically annoying. So I can’t speak to his handling of talking points. When I refer to “conservative radio” in my area, I refer to RL and a host of more or less local call-ins where the hosts feed off of Rush’s ample teats on a daily basis.

I can’t be much more specific about the “political jujitsu” situation than you were, but if one or two people make public statements using the same phrase, and the networks and newspapers are covering those events, the repetition of the phrase in the media (even the conservative media, if it’s trying to cover the events fairly),should not be too surprising.

My concern is media bias on the left and the right. I contend that proper reporting is much like proper teaching of things like history and philosophy: one must strive for objectivity and give the various views their just due. There is a place for professing in both-but that needs to be clearly identified as such. For example, when students ask me what I think, I make a point of saying that my view is one of many and that they should not accept what I think uncritically. I do not test students on assessing my writings nor do I grade papers based on whether they agree or disagree with what I think. Yes, I admit that I am not perfect in my objectivity. But, if I can give opposing views fair treatment in my classes, then surely professional reporters can do the same.

But your examples always hammer the right. Give a link to one of your topics that hammer the left. you cannot do it Mike because it is not in your nature. say what you want now but your actions define you more than your words at this point.

At least it’s an attempt at good journalism. The News Hour in particular. Tells you who its sponsors are at the head of the program. Tells you when a sponsor is part of a story. Provides more than three minutes on a topic!!! Usually tries to provide both sides of a story. Is, for the most part, careful in its language (avoiding inflammatory statements and rash generalizations). Discussions between guests don’t deteriorate into shouting matches.
Off the News Hour reservation the liberal leanings of the network as a whole are pretty obvious but there doesn’t seem to be any blatant attempt to hide that..

Well, you know the answer. So why ask the question?What point are you attempting to make with your question? That taxpayer funding represents the only path to decent news coverage? That significant donations from tax-exempt foundations and large corporations like BP are good or bad for news objectivity? That the News Hour isn’t doing a better job in one hour than Fox, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC do in 24 in a whole day?

“…the liberal leanings of the network as a whole are pretty obvious but there doesn’t seem to be any blatant attempt to hide that..” You admit here that the channel is not objective. Should taxpayer money be given to a news agency or channel that is obviously biased, by your own words, in any direction?

Since we were discussing news, I assumed you understood that my statement “liberal leanings of the network as a whole” was referring to its opinion coverage–“Democracy “Now” and the like. In its weekly schedule, that type of programming (compared to children’s programming, cultural programming , information programming (Nova, Nature, etc.) is minimal. Just check your local PBS schedule if you have a station near you.
So, no, I don’t admit , nor did I say ,that “the channel is not objective”. That would, I believe, qualify as a straw man you’ve constructed. Republicans have long wanted to cut the CPB cord, and a Republican Congress tried, during the Bush years, to eliminate all public funding for PBS, but, even with majorities in the House and Senate they were unwilling to shoulder the opprobrium that would have been heaped on their hunched shoulders if they had killed Big Bird and Oscar.

By any yardstick, PBS is predominantly more objective than anything else on air. And please don’t make the mistake of equating “liberal leanings” with complete lack of objectivity, if you don’t want others to equate conservative leanings in other media with complete lack of objectivity on their part.

Add: “Armed with the backing of President Obama’s deficit reduction committee, congressional leaders are gunning for the CPB and its $420 million budget. Funding from the CPB accounts on average for 15 percent of funding for the more than 1,100 public radio and television stations around the country”see thewrap site

Think of that. $420 million/year. To see this from different perspectives:

At the domestic level, earmarks for 2010: $15.9 billion

Taxpayers for Common Sense and opencongress.org

More perspective: “Typically, families with family offices have $100 million, $500 million, $1 billion, enough to blow off even the Lehmans, the Goldmans and the Northern Trusts of the world. At present, there are approximately 5,000 family offices around the country.”
Where Do You Stand on America’s Wealth Spectrum?
by Lee Eisenberg
Thursday, November 1, 2007 Yahoo.com Bankrate,Inc

As an aside (that means you don’t have to read if you don’t want to) If you’re at all curious, there’s an interesting site at

” Since we were discussing news, I assumed you understood that my statement “liberal leanings of the network as a whole” was referring to its opinion coverage–”Democracy “Now” and the like. ” Fair enough. Should a channel be able to give opinion based political journalism if taxpayer money is involved when their is a ‘leaning’?

Should GM be able to give money to a political campaign if owned by 60% of the American people? Should corporations be able to recieve tax payer money after giving to political campaigns? Should orginizations like ACORN recieve government funding when they are an obvious extension for one political party?

C’mon now. Find me a corporation that doesn’t play both sides of the political fence in some state with some representatives or senators from both parties. They put the dollars where the dollars buy the most influence, and they’re not bothered by political “squishiness”

Of higher level (some might say Constitutional) importance: What say you concerning Bush’s faith-based initiatives? About keeping all gov’t money out of the churches?

Hmm. Is Acorn “an obvious extension of one political party”? Or is it perhaps an obvious extension of a class that some other party chooses to, shall we say, ignore? Or do both parties ignore Acorn equally. leaving the poor gaping into the ever widening gap between them and the rich with no hope of aid from either party?

I think you’d have to look into how much taxpayer money if any( seems to be a damn small amount–if you read my 8:03 post above) is actually used for the opinion-based political journalism or if that programming is completely funded by grants and “viewers like you”. No sense throwing the baby out with the bathwater, though the Nordquists of the world think that’s or something like it would be a neat thing to do. . .